Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.

I realize this is more a textual criticism question than a Greek Q, but what can anyone tell me about the Griesbach Text and the Scholz text? In my slim readings these men vascilated in their theories on criticism and I'm not really sure where the texts bearing their names stand in relation to W&H.

Geoff wrote:I realize this is more a textual criticism question than a Greek Q, but what can anyone tell me about the Griesbach Text and the Scholz text? In my slim readings these men vascilated in their theories on criticism and I'm not really sure where the texts bearing their names stand in relation to W&H.

Thanks in advance

Ok.....I'm a TC Geek at heart, so I guess I'll take a stab at a reply.

Griesbach was the first Textual Critic to abandon the TR, althought not entirely (in contrast to WH), he was also the first person really delve into the theory of transmission, and he was the person to divide the text into three groups:
1) Alexandrian
2) Western
3) Byzantine

If you have access to Meztger's Text of the New Testament you can read about Griesbach from about pg 119 to page 146.

The short answer about the Griesbach Text is....he was the first to produce an edition of the GNT that DIDN'T rely primarily on the TR.

Scholz was a Jesuit who came a bit after Griesbach, and he was primarily concerned with cataloging and finding new texts. He added 616 new manuscripts to those previously known. He had a "proto-local text" view that would later be jumped upon, and expanded by Streeter. Scholtz's text resulted from the influence of his study of manuscripts, and the impression that was made upon him by the uniformity of the Byzantine Texts.....His text really retrogressed back toward the TR. Later in life Scholtz recanted and declared the need for a more Alexandrian text!

Most all of this information is available in my dutifully taken syntax and exegesis notes (which you don't and won't have access to!) and the aforementioned book. Although I don't agree wholeheartedly with Metzger's view on TC, his book(s) are an INVALUABLE tool for any TC study. If you'd like I could suggest a list of my favorite TC books that I use and find handy.

So really, although Scholz's views led him to a view more sympathetic to the current NA and UBS texts, his text is really quite close to the one produced by Maurice Robinson (Byzantine, Majority Text)?

No, not really. The TR and the Majority Text are two completely different animals. When Maurice and I were talking about the differences at ETS last year, I believe he said there were about 1100-1400 variants between the two texts. While that doesn't sound like a whole lot, I believe (I'm shooting completely from the hip here) that it is MORE of a difference than the current NA27 Text and the WH text!! Hard to believe, but true. There is an average of 1 variant PER PAGE difference between the NA text and the WH text (something they don't really advertise). If you have Farstad and Hodges Text (unfortunately out of print at the moment) they have TR variants listed....it's quite interesting.

Sholtz's published text would be closer to a NA or WH text, it was an Alexandrian Priority Text. After spending his life's work examining manuscrpits (most of them Byzantine, because that's what there is the most of) he fell in love with the incredible uniformity of the Byz Text Type in general....that was why he went back to a more of a TR text. I think it might have had a bit to do with sentimentality.